Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
=jjrose;38883025]The 14th is about states denying equal protection of the laws. So states can have laws (like marriage laws) but they may not deny equal access to those laws unless they can show how doing so would further a compelling state interest. So far no one has been able to show how denying marriage to two people of the same sex would further a state interest.
Please learn how to quote properly.
LOL No, you need to learn your history. The 14th amendment was a Reconstruction amendment and intended for the sole purpose of keeping the Radical Republicans in power in the South during that era. And yes, agree with it or not, a compelling state interest has been advanced as defining marriage in the traditional man/woman duo. That is, in the interest of the kids.
And spare all this nonsense about how gay parents -- as a couple who adopt an infant -- are just as likely to be on par with a male and female. It ain't true and the real facts are coming to light as time goes on. The original studies were flawed anyway, and about a third of the members objected to the findings on the grounds (at least one of them) on that it was agenda driven from the start.
=jjrose;38882658]2 boys and a girl. And they have male role models. We didn't raise them in a vacuum.
There is not one thing that a male can do that a female can not when it comes to parenting.
Who are the male role models to these 2 boys and a girl? Are they there every day to guide them when issues come up that only another male understands? As an aside there, it seems even you admit that a male is needed in the life of a male child. Two women cannot possibly do it, and vice-versa.
You seem to be hedging here. Did you and your "wife" adopt an infant from birth? Or are the "father figures" you speak of their natural fathers?
Who are the male role models to these 2 boys and a girl? Are they there every day to guide them when issues come up that only another male understands? As an aside there, it seems even you admit that a male is needed in the life of a male child. Two women cannot possibly do it, and vice-versa.
You seem to be hedging here. Did you and your "wife" adopt an infant from birth? Or are the "father figures" you speak of their natural fathers?
My wife's father did a great job raising his daughters all on his own, a child doesn't need a mother and father, a child needs a good parent or two regardless of their sex. On Mother's Day, my wife calls her father because he was both roles to them.
=urbanlife78;38883931]Your rights shouldn't be up for state votes.
There are no rights in the sense you speak of them. This is just a strawman on the part of the radical gay rights crowd...and appeals to the "my rights" mentality that permeates the mentality of this country. Homosexuals have every right guaranteed under the Bill of Rights as do heterosexuals, by the Constitution.
There are no rights in the sense you speak of them. This is just a strawman on the part of the radical gay rights crowd...and appeals to the "my rights" mentality that permeates the mentality of this country. Homosexuals have every right guaranteed under the Bill of Rights as do heterosexuals, by the Constitution.
Except for the right to marry of course....well I guess gay people could always marry straight people can create more loveless marriages. I guess that works for you, but not those that are in love with each other and wish to be married. Same sex marriage has no effect on you, no matter how much you wish it did.
Though, your opinion will soon not matter because once the Supreme Court rules in favor of same sex marriage, all states will have to comply.
=urbanlife78;38892460]And Loving v. Virginia ruled that equal rights includes marriage. Let me know when a state stops letting interracial marriage happen.
Again, the strawman. Loving v. Virginia involved the case of a man and woman.
Again, the strawman. Loving v. Virginia involved the case of a man and woman.
Haha, yeah, that is what it involved. I guess you could call it a "slippery slope" because that ruling was about two different races being able to marry, something that was once illegal in many states. And what are you gonna do once the Supreme Court rules in favor of same sex marriage because of the 14th Amendment?
Dear gawd. That's right. Experiment with the lives of infants for the sake of advancing an agenda that is not natural and can never be.
Except there's no experiement at play here.
Just raising children.
Well balanced children, I might add.
Only bigoted idiots could think otherwise.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's right. Experiment with the lives of infants for the sake of advancing an agenda that is not natural and can never be.
I guess you could call it a "slippery slope" because that ruling was about two different races being able to marry, something that was once illegal in many states. And what are you gonna do once the Supreme Court rules in favor of same sex marriage because of the 14th Amendment? 
